User talk:Erik Krause

From PanoTools.org Wiki
Revision as of 14:05, 17 October 2010 by Erik Krause (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

A Test

Does one get email if someone writes here?

You should, unless you deactivate it in the preferences. And you can get email when your watchlist changes, or for some other stuff as well. --grin 22:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Zugangskennung

Hallo Erik,

Gesetzt den Fall, ich habe mein Passwort nun wirklich vergessen, wie kaeme ich dann wieder hier herein, wenn der automatische Login seinen time-out hat? Ist hier etwas ueber die angegebene email-Adresse vorgesehen. Nicht dass das mir jetzt nicht peinlich waere in so einem Fall, aber bei mir schwirren so viele Zugangskennungen herum, aufschreiben tut man das ja nicht, und seltener benutzte und eher frische fallen dann halt schneller mal dem Vergessen anheim. -- Klaus 21:00, 18 December 2007 (CET)

Log in -> email Password. - Already done...--Erik Krause 15:41, 20 December 2007 (CET)
Dankeschoen. -- Klaus 17:29, 20 December 2007 (CET)

Editierungen

Hallo Erik,

Ok, vielen Dank! Wolltest Du noch "Stitching 2008 State of the Art" in "How stitching works" integrieren? Schön auch, das bebilderte Remapping. Wenn Du mehr Ideen für bessere Illustrationen hast, nur zu. Das Wiki braucht ein bischen frischen Wind! --Erik Krause 16:02, 5 May 2008 (CEST)
Das "Stitching 2008 State of the Art" wollte ich gerne so stehenlassen, vielleicht mit einem Verweis auf "How stitching works", was ja daraus hervorgegangen ist. Was ich aber mal mache (hoffe, dass das in der history nicht zu uebel wirkt) - "Talk:How stitching works" als Diskussionsort zu benennen. -- Klaus 13:59, 6 May 2008 (CEST)
finde ich nicht so gut. Wenn da zweimal fast der gleiche Text ist stiftet das nur Verwirrung, besonders, wenn später mal jemand anderes weiterarbeiten möchte. Die "State of the Art"-Version kann ja in der History bleiben und man kann mit einem Link mit passender oldid darauf verweisen. (Wie z.B. in Enfuse#Known_bugs der Verweis zur alten Version).
Ich habe mich dazu durchgerungen, die momentane "State of the Art" als Unterseite in meinen User-Bereich zu stellen. Das ist gut genug (auch von der URL), wenn ich das mal als Hinweis referenzieren moechte. "Wenn da zweimal fast der gleiche Text ist stiftet das nur Verwirrung, besonders, wenn später mal jemand anderes weiterarbeiten möchte." Gerade der Aspekt, was die Synchronisierung von Kopien betrifft, ueberzeugt mich. -- Klaus 15:19, 6 May 2008 (CEST)
Danke! Trotzdem: Weiter so :-) --Erik Krause 17:45, 6 May 2008 (CEST)

blocking Drbeams

You asked me:

"Why did you block this user? He seemed a valuable contributor to me. --Erik Krause 09:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)"

And later wrote me:

"Ok, I found the reason given on the hugin-ptx list. However, wiki blocks should be transparent to wiki users. --Erik Krause 10:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)"

The actual reason is given here. In a nutshell:

  • The user broke the instructions badly with no value added, causing errors, grievance and confusion to the general public.
  • The user demonstrated lack of understanding for what he is doing at a very basic level (adding an irrelevant switch to a simple mkdir command).
  • Past incidents with the same user following the same pattern show that he does not understand when the solutions to his problems are on his end. Without such understanding the problems can't be fixed and must be limited from influencing the project.
  • His constant finger-pointing in every direction but himself affects the project negatively.
  • And to answer your point: I don't know about all of his contributions. Maybe you can point me in a direction that shows value? Most of what I have seen from him is anything but valuable.


Now a question to you: how do I make a wiki block "transparent to wiki users"? Isn't the block log transparent enough? How is this entry any different from these?

--Yuval 12:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

"user need to think before breaking further the wiki" is not very meaningful. Someone not familiar with hugin build process probably won't understand your annoyance. The other blocks where spammers which is obvious to anyone who looks at their contributions. I'd prefer something like "details see talk page" pointing to your or his user talk page. Even better would be to discuss the issue on the talk page before actully block someone. Please see w:Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Cool-down_blocks and the following. --Erik Krause 13:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. I understand and respect your preference. From my perspective wiki talk pages are as inefficient as web-based forums and I prefer to talk on 1:1 email or many:many mailing lists. One-liner entries in the log should suffice, and I could have been clearer / more succint with something such as "stop breaking the page". Discussions with DrBeams leading to the block were going nowhere. This has been a problem for weeks and months. Based on the reading you pointed me to, I conclude that a cooling-off block was the wrong tool for the situation. I unblocked and won't use blocks for similar situations in the future. I do consider his edits that lead to the block to be disruptive. SHould he disrupt again, I will consider a different anti-disruptive course of action. --Yuval 13:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Perhaps simply revert his edits (and commenting accordingly) in that case would do. Thank you for your continuous effort to keep the wiki a valuable resource! --Erik Krause 14:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)